The Pirate Bay found GUILTY!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Valenti

consider that statement very carefully when you take into account that 49% of the torrent traffic on the pirate bay is TV SHOWS.

And another 32% of all movies torrents are old enough that they aired ON TV.

Lots of people are using torrents/thepiratebay exactly like a VCR (like me)

eztv.it which only shows tv shows/tv content on their list uses the pirate bay as their tracker and so do a lot of tv show related torrent sites.

lots of people use torrents to steal.


Hitler did make the trains run on time. Maybe he wasn't so bad after all.

btw gideongallery.... how do you use your VCR to download Microsoft Office Enterprise 2007 (already cracked of course) or Photoshop CS3?

how do you "timeshift" stolen software or music?

A new world will come soon

and lots of people used vcr to make bootleg copies of movies that the sell on the street corner. Just becuase the technology can be used for an infringement doesn't make the technology illegal. Nor does it make the provider of the technology criminally liable for it use (walmart -> for selling vcrs).

Using your analogy, we should get rid of trains because hitler used them to run jews into concentration camps.


i don't i have never downloaded software i have not paid for. I admitted that i downloaded a copy of windows 95 so that i could upgrade my machine to xp.

I had chosen to upgrade from windows 95 to windows NT 2000 because windows ME sucked, and i threw the disk out thinking that i could use the windows NT as valid upgrade option. Microsoft XP home upgrade would not accept it so i "recovered" the content i bought so i could do the upgrade.

That another legal use of torrents btw




this is the preamble to the boston strangler quote

notice the similarity between the statements made by Mr. Ferris and Gottfrid Svartholm.

i don't agree with you at all. i think that if millions of people woke up in the morning, started buying guns and shooting kids in playgrounds by the 100's of 1000's, we would have to look at how to stop people from acquiring guns to begin with. the gun doesn't cause murder, but that wouldn't change the fact that they would be at the core of the problem and a key focal point in successfully addressing the issue

you continually make this weak argument about "legit use" of torrent sites and refuse to accept the obvious... that they are the principle tool of mass copyright infringement and theft.

i can use your logic and say nuclear weapons don't kill people, so who cares who has them.. they are just inanimate objects. that kind of moronic, circular reasoning can go on forever. that doesn't change the fact that torrents are at the core of copyright infringement. whether or not you feel (or the law does) that there is a legitimate use for torrents, that doesn't negate the fact that their principle use is theft of music, movies and software.

your problem is that you want to defend torrents and since you know you can't really do that while admitting they are used for widespread theft, you have to keep deflecting the conversation away to VCR's or cassettes or other mediums. that has nothing to do with a persons rights to the content they created and the terms of the license they've given for you to use it.

each time you talk about vcr's, its a quiet admission that you know your argument and position is weak and mostly indefensible.

cars kill people should we get rid of them too
drinking alcohol
smoking
some porn models who found god say that porn degrades them

let criminalize everything that could be used badly. That is the stupidest arguement i have ever heard.

the reason i keep going back to the "legit use" of torrents is because there are to many idiots who can count.

if 49% of torrent traffic is tv shows / 1/3 of movies fall into the catagory of aired on tv.
That means right there you have more
than 50% of torrent traffic is legit

It means that saying that the "principle tool of mass copyright infringment and theft" is a bald face lie




so if the LAW says that a majority of it use is legitimate it principle use is not legitimate

i suggest you look up the definition of princple

if more than 50% of the torrent traffic is people using it like a VCR how the fuck can you say the "fundamental doctrine" is anything but using it like a VCR.



so because i don't blindly accept your completely bogus claim that a majority of torrent traffic is theft (when independently verifiable stats prove that it is in fact NOT) my arguement is some how weaker.

~6 years in internet time is a lot.

Interesting article on the comparisons between Google and Pirate Bay copyright infringement issues - http://blog.kaplak.com/2009/04/07/go...t-infringemen/

gideongallery, we've had this argument over and over.

I'd just like to say that statistics can be skewed. We have no way of knowing that those percentages are correct.

But I CAN tell you this. EVERY person I have ever spoken with...including people who DON'T know what I do for a living...and I mean EVERY person: When I ask them about torrent sites the first word out of their mouth is PORN.

You are the only person I have ever heard say that they use it to store episodes of a television show.

And I'm not saying that millions of people don't do that. But I would say that there is no way that anybody can know what really goes on with a torrent site. Including the owner of the torrent site.

We have found our content on torrents and it was cleverly renamed. If a Claudia-Marie anal scene is on your torrent and it's given a title that doesn't imply porn at all then how would the owner of a torrent with millions of torrents have a clue whether it was a television show, a cracked software, a porn movie, or a ripped album?

They wouldn't. And it would never be in their best interest to know that anyway.

The only statistic they are looking at is traffic and how much they get paid for advertising spots. Any statistics on what is being downloaded would be impossible. They would pretty much have to download every bit torrent themselves individually and look at it and then categorize it. Impossible. And even if it were possible it would be like collecting evidence to incriminate yourself.

So no, I don't think those statistics are real at all.

Thats good news.

(from: http://www.svd.se/nyheter/inrikes/artikel_2783119.svd)

Judge in Pirate Bay Case may be biased

Published: April 23, 2009, 08.18. Last Modified: April 23, 2009, 08.47

The judge of the Pirate Bay case may be biased. A review shows that there are links between the judge and film and record companies' representatives in the right. The judge is sitting, for example, the Board of the Swedish Association of copyright.

- But I have not felt that I am biased because of those commitments, "says Tomas Norström, Judge of the Pirate Bay case to SvD.se.

and the last time we had this "arguement" i documented exactly how you would/they did collect the stats.

1. they pulled the rss feed from sumotorrents (which at the time was a meta search engine for all the torrent trackers, including porn trackers)
2. they ran the subscription thru a torrent client
3. they read the downloaded count from the tracker stats.

It the same technique that the RIAA/MPAA uses to get their numbers for convicting the pirate bay. IF you are saying that it is not valid, you are basically saying that it is impossible to get a conviction EVER.

The KEY point is that since it is the same technique that the RIAA is using that means any skew because of "misnaming" would effect both number equally. It statistically cancells each other out.

And again...I have to tell you that doesn't tell anything about WHAT people are downloading.
Without physically putting together the content on their hard drive and looking at it they have no way of knowing what they downloaded.

A video entitled "Nice blonde walking on the beach" could be simply a nice blonde walking on a beach. OR it could be a Hollywood movie. Or it could be a porn scene. They have absolutely no idea what people are doing. Unless now you're trying to say that your privacy is being invaded as well when you use a torrent?

I don't care how many times you quote statistics...if the data isn't accurate the stats you are basing your argument on are completely skewed.

torrents are session based

i download a file form that session i have the EXACT SAME FILE as everyone else in the session (from the tracker stats broadcast to the client so it know of potential sources for the pieces)

So in the example i gave you, i can look at every file and see what it is. (or if you are not a moron and know how to automagically generate a unique hash code via bit by bit scanning uniquely tag each file)
And i can get a count of the number of times that particular file has been downloaded within that session.


To find out how many times a particular movie/tv episode/porn episode is download i add up all the counts from all the sessions where the file is downloaded.

So No you don't need to violate anyones privacy to get an accurate count. Only an idiot would believe that.

if anything the stats i am quoting you are an order of magnitude than anything you can define because your stats are based on sampling which have a default margin of error
and my stats are based on ACTUAL COUNTS.

No, your stats are based on nothing that I can see. Your last two posts have said a lot of nothing at all. There simply is no way that anybody can know exactly what is being downloaded. You are half-assing stuff by trying to say that. Stats are stats. And based on everything you've ever said about torrents...I don't see how in the heck that they could ever have reliable stats on what a person downloaded.

let get this straight assuming your correct and all the stats are i am giving completely wrong since the methodology and the raw data used was exactly the same as what the RIAA used in court That means it is impossible to prove any torrent tracker guilty.

IF your wrong and the stats are accurate enough to be used in court (see above) then a majority of torrent traffic is using a torrent like your parents used a VCR.

either way, what the pirate bay, and every torrent is doing is not illegal. The first would be not guilty because of technicallity, the second because of fair use.

I was kind of happy when i heard these news. They deserved it about showing all their lawsuits and laughing about them

I'll just butt in for a second.

Even if most people are using torrents to download TV shows (and I have never really complained about that unless the show is something that is on HBO or Showtime or some non basic cable/TV channel) for many it is still not like a VCR.

A VCR records what TV show you set it to record ( or for that reason so does a DVR or Tivo). If that show was never broadcast in your area you couldn't record it. I know a lot of torrent traffic is people outside the US downloading US TV shows. Many countries in the world get some US shows, but not all of them. So say for example that someone in France downloads an episode (or full season) of the show My Name is Earl. Now anyone with a TV and an antenna in the US can watch that show, but if the show is not aired in France then there is no way that person could have ever watched that show so in effect if they had a VCR they could not record the show because it was never on the air. I don't know if this show does or does not air in France, I'm just using it as an example.

So if the show never aired in an area and that person downloads it then they could not be timeshifting the show because it was never available to them in the first place.

The same can be said for some people in the US. I read that about 1 in 10 households in the US don't have cable (or satellite) and just use a regular TV antenna. More and more people are turning away from cable and to the internet as their main source of entertainment. So if these people only have internet access and not cable TV and they download a show like The Shield or In Plain Sight that are cable only shows they too are not using the torrents like a VCR because they never had access to that content in the first place.

Anyway, just a thought.

dont drop the soap

as to the arguement for US citizens i will cede that point, however it is irrelevant because there is no way the pirate bay can tell the difference between the US customers who are using it like a VCR (90% based on your quoted stat) and the 10% who are not. Like the VCR which can be used for both legitimate uses (timeshifting/home viewing) and illegal (bootlegging videos) the VCR seller (walmart) is not legally responsible for the true infringers activities.
It is the responsiblity of the copyright holder to find and go after those that are actually commiting the crime.


As to the arguement about foreign countries where the program is not sold at all (use dr who confidential which only airs in britian), no sale is possible to those people, which means no sale is lost. And the 1 download != 1 lost sale ruling means that it meets 4th condition of fair use.

Which was the "Access shifting" fair use that the Grokster people were trying to establish when the supreme court ruled that since each transaction had one infringing (sharing)"in and of itself" they did not need to consider the fair use right at all However since seeding breaks the file into a 1000 pieces the "in and of itself" infringement arguement can not be logically applied which means the courts should and MUST consider the validity of the fair use of "access shifting.


I am of the belief that the arguement that "we licience for a specific place only" is just as invalid as the "we licience it on a limited bases to be viewed at a specific time" (arguement struck down by the Betamax case).

Since the law was only designed to protect the income generating ability for the copyright holder, and courts have explictly ruled such (see highlighted portions).

GG you are pretty damn entertaining as always. Those "stats" are completey not viable. And I would hazard an educated guess that if you took all the porn off of TPB their traffic would drop to the ground.

Or maybe it was just "coincidence" that as their traffic numbers exploded all the pornsites with high traffic dropped to nothing? I guess all those millions and millions of people who used to come to our tgp's suddenly just completely gave up porn and chose instead to download bit torrents of their favorite t.v. shows. Ridiculous.

please when you compare the reach of your tgp against the stats of nbc.com and cbs.com

your not even on the graph

http://alexa.com/siteinfo/nbc.com+Grampland.Com+cbs.com

i never said porn torrents were zero, i just said they were the minority. And if you look at the stats from alexa you can clearly see why, compared to a tv network you are tiny tiny fish.

BTW people have the same right to timeshift your content as they do with tv shows. IF they want to timeshift/recover it after they cancelled their membership with you that is still perfectly legal.

Bro, Grampland is off the graph these days. So please don't tell me what I already know. TGP traffic is gone. But there was a time when I had more traffic than God. As usual you totally missed the point I'm trying to make. The decline of everyone's tgp's/freesites in terms of actual unique visitors per day began as torrent sites began taking off. And then when the full scene tubes stepped in that completely put an end to it.

We all know that. I'm merely saying to you (since you refuse to acknowledge it) that PORN is the driving force of TBP. Not re-runs of television shows as you claim and those b.s. stats try to say.

I would bet my life that if torrent sites had no porn on them they would only be used by geeks like you. Same for tube sites. First thing that everybody does when they get a computer is look for porn. Just like in the old days the first thing you did when you got a polaroid camera was take a picture of your own dick.

So stop being a dick and quit trying to claim that people don't predominantly use torrent sites for porn.

aren't they going back to trial cause one of the judges is bias?

show me one independent study that says that.

just one, if what you were saying was true you should be able to produce one study, using the MPAA methodology (the one the court recognized as valid) that backs up that statement.



considering that many sites like mininova.org carry no porn whatsoever
considering that sites like eztv.it carry only tv shows (driving tv only viewers to the pirate bay)
considering that there are more than 100 private trackers dedicated to tv shows ONLY.

your statement make no sense, it like saying that porn dvd outsell all movies combined (home, tv, in theaters).

tv shows is number 1
videos (which include movie ) is number 2
games is number 3
music is number 4 (mainly becuase torrents pack songs into albums not individual songs)

and then and only then do you get to porn (7.83%)

even if you were to assume that the uncatagorized other (5.06%) which represents the mislabels stuff and a whole lot more was 100% porn too, it still would only become the 3rd highest percentage.(and that assumption is totally bogus).

even with that assumption tv shows are DOWNLOADED 3 times as much as porn.

now granted 7.83% of 25 million downloads a day is still a lot, and may hurt your bottom line a lot, but that does make one cent of difference to the fact that most people are using the tracker as a VCR.

oh and if you want to look at an example

http://www.torsky.org/details.php?fid=13016070
naughty office london keys like 30 downloads

one mirror (it was split 3 ways) of a specialty show like The ultimate fighter

http://www.mininova.org/tor/2519964
has 776 downloads and it was put up only 45 minutes ago.

That people automatically subscribing to the feed for their favorite pirate(aAF) the general public who have no idea about torrent subscriptions have not hit this torrent yet

and that tv show has multiple different listing splitting the total

http://www.mininova.org/search/?sear...r+s09e04&cat=0

there is no logical way at all that you could come to the conclusion porn is bigger than tv on bit torrent.

My quote of 1 in 10 was not that 1 in 10 are use torrents as a VCR, my quote was that I read that 1 in 10 houses in the US doesn't have cable. So if those people are downloading shows that they don't normally have access to because they don't have cable they are not timeshifting. Timeshifting, it seems, is when you choose to watch content you paid for at another time or on another device. If you don't have access to cable you can't timeshift cable shows because you never paid for them. The same could be said with what type of cable you have. For example a friend of mine has Dish Network and I have regular cable. I get channels that he doesn't like VS and he gets channels that I don't like HDNet. If I download an HDNet show that is not timeshifting because I didn't have access to it in the first place. The same would be said if he downloaded a show that was on VS.

As for the argument that it is not a lost sales and the technicalities of how torrents work and why they are legal, I'm not going to get into that. I have stated in the past that I think people who create content should be allowed to determine where and how it is distributed and if that means denying access to some people so be it.

My point was that you are saying that most people use torrents (when it comes to TV shows) like people used to use their VCRs. I don't know that this is accurate. I think there are a lot of people downloading shows they never had access to in the first place which means they are not using it as a VCR.

Too late sig spot... Sands is going to hang me by the balls.

top 10 shows on bit torrtent
notice how many are on specialty channels and how many are on the broadcast cable you can get for free thru the air.

so assuming that EVERYONE who does cable also doesn't have any access to tv is just plain stupid.

the reason i ceded the point is because 10% shift is imaterial to the results, even if you made 10 of the tv downloaders illegal, they still out number everything else.
and that is before you take any other fair use into account



and that is why i said go after the individuals who are ACTUALLY BREAKING THE LAW, not take out the entire technology for everyone. Attacking the pirate bay, DOES BOTH, it takes away my right to use the torrents as a VCR, and i have never downloaded a show that i don't pay for. Hell my cable bill is over a hundred bucks so i can buy a feed to BBC so i have a right to get dr who confidential. I currently have my internet on a different carrier then my TV even though i could save money bundling packages because my internet carrier does not have BBC canada as an option.


your monopoly on your work is granted to you by the government, "'The sole interest of the United States and the primary object in conferring the monopoly" is to "promote borad public availabilty of " that content.

and you want to abuse that right granted you to PREVENT BROAD DISTRIBUTION OF THE CONTENT.

Care to explain why you believe such a breach of your contractional obligation is justified.



One other thing you have to realize is that most people downloading from torrents have FAST internet connection. They represent top 60% of downloaders, which means they are more like me, having money to buy cable, rather then being the poor souls who can't afford cable.

We are more likely to have paid for the shows (including specialty channels) however given the show break down, most download come from shows that ARE available to even those people who don't have cable, and are getting their TV thru rabbit ears.

I would like to now how many of the people who download those shows do so from places where those shows don't air.

I have never had a problem with people downloading broadcast TV shows. I kind of feel that if they are giving it away over the air then anyone with a TV and antenna can access them and if someone were to record them on a VCR or DVR they would just fast forward past the commercials so having some people download them is to be expected.


As far as going after individuals, the RIAA and groups like that have been. To me going after sites like the Pirate Bay is a form of that. If I had a gun store and people came in to buy a gun and were going to use it to hunt or target practice and I sell it to them no problem. Nothing illegal has happened. Even if they never said why they were going to use it I could then admit that I had no reasonable idea that they were going to do something bad with it. But if I have that same gun store and a guy comes in to buy a gun and tells me that he is going to use it to rob a store and I still sell it to him, maybe someone needs to look at me. If someone tells me they want to commit a crime with the gun I am selling them and I help the file the serial number off the gun, I am an accessory to the crime. You can argue that bit torrent sites like Pirate bay are providing a legit service to some people and some people are not using it to illegally download anything, but many of the people that are using the site are doing so to illegally download stuff. If you think otherwise you are just fooling yourself. people want it for free and the torrent sites are helping them to get it. These sites are aiding people in committing a crime and if they do that they should be held accountable.

If they want to run a legit torrent site that only offers things that they either have permission to link to (like bands and artists that want to give away their stuff) or they have stuff they themselves created or that holds no current copyright. Nothing is wrong with that. But the minute they link to the torrent file for the leaked Wolverine movie that hasn't even hit theaters yet, they are aiding everyone who downloads it in committing a crime.



I feel that if I create a movie, or music CD (or to some extent a TV show - depending on how it airs) or a book, or any form of art/entertainment I should have the right to control where and how it is distributed. It has nothing to do with money. If I don't want the people of Spain to see my work, I should have that right. Hell, for that matter if I want to allow access to my work to everyone but people living in Alabama I should have that right. Just because a person wants to see/consume my work should not just give them a blanket right to do so.

If I make a movie and then release it on DVD and I only make DVDs for sale in the US and I choose not to sell them to anyone else (or even make DVDs that will work in NON US region coded machines) that should be up to me. If I am leaving money on the table, so be it. It is my work, I should be allowed to control it. If the people of France want to see my work and it is not available to them, tough shit. As Mick Jagger famously said, "You can't always get what you want."

I hold the same idea when it comes to distribution as I see in many stores where they have a sign that says, "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone." If I make a DVD available in the US only and someone buys it and burns it to create a backup, no problem. If that someone loans his DVD to a friend, no problem. If that person puts it in a torrent and seeds it, big problem. Now people I don't want having it can access it. I know their download of it doesn't hurt me financially because I am not selling it to them and I don't ever plan to sell it to them, but if I don't want them to have it, they shouldn't be allowed to get it. Part of the problem with the world, and the Internet as a whole, is a sense of entitlement. People want it so they take it. They want it free, so they don't pay for it. If I create something I should be allowed to control who has it and how they use it and I should be able to defend that right.

It may not be how the letter of the law is written out, it is just how I feel.


I won't argue that most of the big downloaders are people that have fast internet connections and if your list of the top shows is accurate than chances are a lot of them have access to those shows to begin with.

But, again I just wonder how many of the downloaders are from outside the US where these shows don't air. This study http://torrentfreak.com/bittorrent-m...-in-australia/ is from 2 years ago, but then the US didn't even rank in the top 10 as far as biggest downloaders. I'm sure some of those countries get US TV broadcasts, but I would imagine many of them don't. If that is the case then those people are downloading something they never had access to in the first place right?

According to this http://arstechnica.com/web/news/2009...pirate-bay.ars the pirate bay themselves say around 8%-9% of connections come from the US. Obviously this is only one site, but still that is not that many which means there are many people in other countries accessing these shows that never would have access to them to begin with right?

So in your gun analogy you want the gun store owner to be left alone UNTIL there is PROOF that they were aware it was being used Illegally. But there is no communication before the torrent is downloaded, there is no possible way for the pirate bay to know if you are using it legitimately or not. They can tell the difference between me downloading only shows i bought and someone downloading shows they didn't buy. By your example they should be left alone.

nope i am argueing that a MAJORITY of people are using it as a legit service.
Fact 10 shows are broadcast shows not cable shows
fact highspeed internet access is need so poorer people who can't afford cable are not ging to be on the torrent anyway
fact tv shows represent 49%+ of all torrent traffic.
you are trying to argue that pirate bay should be held responsible for the MINORITY of people who use the system for illegal activity instead of going after those people directly.
That like saying that walmart should be sued because they sell vcrs that can be used to make bootleg copies of Video Tapes.

so basically fuck your part of the contract with the government for the exclusive rights they have given you.

if that was the way the law works, we would not have a VCR because universal said they didn't want their content distributed that way

we would not have mp3 either because the record industry wanted us to keep buying cds.

There is something completely wrong with trying to turn a conditional monopoly granted explictly to maximize distribution of the content, into an absolute monopoly that can be use to WHOLESALE prevent the distribution of content on new technology.





The only reason you have a right control your content is because the government has given you a monopoly on ECONOMIC distribution of your content, they gave you that limited monopoly with the intent of maximizing distribution of that content.

Lucky for the public whenever a copyright holder tries this bullshit the court ultimately rule that they don't have such a right, and it becomes fair use, a free market competition for the distribution of the content where you have no rights to stop it.

Basicallly if you refuse to hold up your end of the bargin then the courts will take away the monopoly benefits from you.

it has noting to do with entiltement it has eveything to do with expecting copyright holders to live up to responsiblity of the contract they have with the goverment, they did not give you a monopoly so that you could dictatorially control people lives (tell them what they can and can not see) they did so so that the monetary insentive to create the work was there so that the public could consume the content.


regional and temporally restricted content is going to be the next fair use battle
I have said that such a declaration of right is exactly the same "we licience it to consumers on a limited bases, at a specific day on a specific time" which was struck down in the beta max case.

What different betwen your statement "i don't want that country to have access, for no monetary reason whatsoever"

This is my last response to this thread. I'm leaving in a few hours for a short vacation. I'll check back when I get back in a few days so I can see how I am wrong

Here is what I am saying. If Pirate Bay allows the torrent for the new Wolverine movie to be on its site 100% of the people downloading that movie are doing something illegal. That movie hasn't even gotten to theaters yet but it did get leaked somehow. So if that torrent is on the site, it is illegal. You can't argue that pirate bay wouldn't know who is illegally downloading that movie because 100% of the people downloading that movie are doing it illegally.

If that torrent or any torrent for any movie that is either in theaters only or has been leaked pre-release (or any CD that has been leaked pre-release) is on the site then the site is being use for illegal purposes.



Again you fail to answer the question. How many of these MAJORITY you claim are simply timeshifting their content IE broadcast shows are living in areas where those shows are not available to them?

Lets use a few numbers. You say 49% of all torrent traffic is TV shows. Great. So then lets take pirate bay's numbers that somewhere around 9% of their connections come from north America (US and Canada although I do understand that not all US shows are shown in Canada) So if 100 people are downloading torrents from pirate bay that means that 49 of them are downloading TV shows. Of those 49 about 9 of them are from North America that means 40 of those people are from somewhere else. Where? Well according to that other study I posted it could be anywhere from Australia to the UK to Slovakia. Now you might argue that these shows are on the air in Australia or the Uk, but somehow I doubt Heroes and 24 are on every Monday in Slovakia. Maybe I am wrong though. Still if 9% of the connections are from the US (this is pirate bay's number not mine) then that would mean as much as 91% of the people downloading TV shows could be from areas where those shows don't air on broadcast TV or maybe even cable. If that is the case then those people are illegally downloading it.



I disagree. Universal could agree to not put their movies out on tape. Sure the courts correctly say that they can build and sell VCRs. The courts (if challenged) would say that a person can build and create an MP3 player or a CD player or a DVD player, that doesn't mean that a content provider should be forced to have their content distributed on that network and made available to anyone who wants it if they do not choose to. Some will, and they will make money from it and some won't and they won't and they don't want to and lose out that is there problem.

If I create a movie and I don't want some guy in bumfuck, nowhere downloading it because he can't buy it I should retain that right and if there are companies out there that are helping to facilitate the distribution of my content against my will I should be allowed to protect myself against them.

Universal fought the VCR and lost and it was a good ruling by the court. Still, there was no ruling that forced universal to distribute its content via video tape and if someone decided to somehow make bootleg copies of their movies on video tape and sell then they would go after them. No different with torrents. If I make a movie and it ends up online against my will and people who I don't want to have access to it are downloading it, I should be able to go after those people and the people that help facilitate that theft.



Your statement is the exact definition of someone with entitlement issues. Your statement is basically saying that as long as you don't harm a content producer monetarily then you should just be allowed to take whatever you want as long as it isn't available to you to buy. When I was growing up there was a lot of things I wanted. Some of those things I couldn't afford and some of those things were just not available to me because of where I lived. Guess what my mom told me? She told me tough luck, in life you can't always have every little thing you desire. You seem to think differently. I go back to my previous statement. If I don't want someone is Spain seeing my movie, that should be up to me. It doesn't matter if the my doing that costs me money, it is my money to lose. Just because someone in Spain may want to see my movie doesn't mean they are entitled to see it.




Think of it like this. Maybe if the show Heroes is not shown in certain countries the studio that produces Heroes doesn't want the people in that country downloading the show because they are planning to eventually sell them the show on DVD in that country. this goes back to the original statement. If the show was not available to you on TV or cable and you are downloading it, you are not using torrents as a VCR and according to pirate bay's estimates that could be as many as 91% of the people downloading. I'm sure the number isn't near that high because I know a lot of these shows get broadcast globally, but I would be willing to bet it is a pretty decent amount of the people.

Intense thread ...see siggy

the problem is the law is against you there 1 download != 1 sale and the fact that monopoly was only granted for the scope of commercial distribution
Work prints are not sold (so there is no economic loss).


remember timeshifting is only one of the fair use right we are talking about
using your example everyone else is covered by access shifting so it still legal. You may want the law to be different but that not the case.

we are not forcing the content producer to distribute on that network, we are simply taking way the right to PREVENT it from being distributed on that network. Their is a huge fundamental difference the first makes the content producer incur the cost of such a push, while the second allows any competitor who is willing to incure the cost take up the responsiblity that the content producer is abdicating.

In hindsight that ruling was a bad ruling 5/6 tv shows that were cancelled were timeshifted to death. Shows like Terminator:SCC/MOWE have like 2-3 times as many people PVRing/torrenting it then watching it live. The show is going to be cancelled for that reason.

it like our little back and forth in the radio head thread

the betamax case gave us the right to timeshifting because at the time they did not precieve this problem of timeshifting a show to death. But once the right is given you have to live with the consequences of that granted right. Had universal been smart figuired out a way to monetize the timeshifted viewers (ie got product placement early, established some sort of data collection of timeshifted viewings) then the shows would be subsidized from income comming from timeshifting. But because they pushed it thru the courts they created this situation.


This is your artist act fair arguement all over again.

Spain grant you a monopoly for the distribution of your content because they it creates an insentive for you to produce content that is consumed by their public. When you uses that monopoly deny access for non monetary reason (because i want too) then you are violating the entire context of the agreement. Now if the government had screwed up (like the record companies) and actually granted you that level of control i would fully support your arguement, but they didn't they explictly wrapped your exclusive rights with fair use (non commercial infringing).

You are trying to argue in favor of using the BENEFIT of the agreement to violate your RESPONSIBLITY of the agreement. When the courts make a fair use decision it basically the equivalent of ruling the contract null and void for the scope where you abdicated your RESPONSIBLITY.

In your example you are abdicating your responsiblity to Spanish population today for the currently non existent but potential future income.

What i can never understand is why so many clueless copyright holders keep holding these absurd positions when the courts have time and time again proven they will simply revoke the monopoly (for that scope) open up the doors to competition and force you to lose your competitive advantage and the potential future revenue your trying to protect.

A better solution would be to come up with a solution that protects the future potential income (even just partially) without abdicating your current responsiblity(branding bugged bit torrent distributed content) , because that would at least keep the monopoly power you have intact.